Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 11th Mar 2013 14:46 UTC
Games "To see anyone defending EA and Maxis for the state of SimCity, even were it in perfect working order on launch, depresses me to my core. This self-flagellation-as-skincare notion, where gamers loudly and proudly defend the destruction of their own rights as consumers, is an Orwellian perversity. That it might be considered in any way controversial to call them out on their crap, to point out that no, always-on DRM is not an advantage to anyone, is bewildering. It's a sign of just how far the gaming world has fallen into the rabbit hole of the publisher's burrowing." As usual, RPS hits the nail on the head so hard it shoots through the board.
Thread beginning with comment 555198
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: The solution is not simple
by Jezza on Tue 12th Mar 2013 09:54 UTC in reply to "The solution is not simple"
Jezza
Member since:
2005-10-13

I agree that EA screwed up but demanding DRM-free single player games is not a solution. PC piracy rates are obscenely high and companies don't like to spend years on a game only to see the majority pirate it.


You forget that many of these pirates are people who have bought the games and then use a torrent to bypass the DRM. I know many people who have done this, so using the inflation of piracy as a justification of ever-more draconian DRM is misleading. There are three types of pirate and only one of them counts as a 'lost sale'.

The first are [mostly] children and teenagers who don't have £50 a time for games and would never have bought the game to begin with.

The second are people who have already bought the game, but dislike the DRM, so they've torrented a cracked version.

The third, and as far as the [objective] published research shows, much in the minority, are those who could and would have bought it, but can get it for free, so they do.


There has been research published (albeit specifically about the music industry) showing that the second group are much greater in number than the third and actually contribute extra sales, rather than the company losing sales.

Reply Parent Score: 1

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

The first are [mostly] children and teenagers who don't have £50 a time for games and would never have bought the game to begin with.


A lot of modern PC games need pretty decent hardware to run. If you can afford to get a laptop to run the game you or their parents can probably afford the game.

When I was a kid, if I couldn't afford something ... I went without.

The second are people who have already bought the game, but dislike the DRM, so they've torrented a cracked version.


That is bullshit and you know it.

Reply Parent Score: 3

sparkyERTW Member since:
2010-06-09

"The first are [mostly] children and teenagers who don't have £50 a time for games and would never have bought the game to begin with.


A lot of modern PC games need pretty decent hardware to run. If you can afford to get a laptop to run the game you or their parents can probably afford the game.

When I was a kid, if I couldn't afford something ... I went without.
"

Well said. Half the reason I got back into console gaming (yes, I realize the irony there, and I am already regretting that decision) was the need to spend ~$300-400 a year on upgrades to play the latest and greatest. And yes, if you can't afford the chocolate bar at the corner store, that doesn't excuse you for swiping it.

"The second are people who have already bought the game, but dislike the DRM, so they've torrented a cracked version.


That is bullshit and you know it.
"

Well, I'm not sure it's entirely bullshit... but it should be. I've known a couple people who have mentioned doing this, but to me their response should have been either a) don't buy it because you object to the DRM, or b) if it was bought not knowing about the DRM issues, return and demand - strongly and loudly - your money back for what is a defective product (yes, I realize most companies have a no-return policy on computer games, but that's a whole other problem that needs to be addressed right there).

Reply Parent Score: 1

ze_jerkface Member since:
2012-06-22


The third, and as far as the [objective] published research shows, much in the minority, are those who could and would have bought it, but can get it for free, so they do.


Which objective research? What is your excuse for $50 PC games that have majority piracy rates and yet require a $1000+ PC? Are those teens able to afford the gaming PC but not the games?

There has been research published (albeit specifically about the music industry) showing that the second group are much greater in number than the third and actually contribute extra sales, rather than the company losing sales.


I really don't care about dubious piracy studies that depend on asking pirates how much they buy. It should be obvious that any such study is flawed since it depends on people breaking the law to be honest, especially when it is in their best interest to depict themselves favorably. It's just as silly as trying to determine if racism is a problem by polling a group of white people and asking if they are racist.

But thanks for proving my point about the PC having a culture of piracy that is defended. I've never seen an Xbox forum thread where pirates are rationalized as teenagers, the poor, etc. When Microsoft ban-hammers pirates the response is supportive.

Do you deny that PC games regularly have pirates rates of over 50%?
http://www.tweakguides.com/Piracy_4.html

Reply Parent Score: 4